PHILL PARSONS
Would HCC have this if it was thought of in Clarence?.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714165104.htm
Or perhaps this, although it might foul fishing lines.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090730073928.htm
No doubt opposition would be raised by such ideas, but is that opposition valid?
Another choice in greening it up is here where a novel form of addressing storm water runoff has been measured for corporations looking to keep the costs of upgrading a systems capacity low.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803083628.htm
And there can be other benefits in greening up a city.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126193136.htm
The Federal Opposition have a report recommending a different trading scheme where most emissions are permit free and only those above the level set are paid for.
On the basis of that are asking the Government to delay the bill to February when the Copenhagen negotiations have supposedly set clear targets and then pass it.
With the negotiations last month unable to agree on targets there is a likelihood that targets will not be set in Copenhagen and further negotiation follow on to fix targets, giving an excuse to delay further. .
Turnbull’s own article explains why it is better for the Government to go to an election early on something Australians think is important than wait and fight out an election in less certain economic circumstances with a budget constrained by debt.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25863908-24636,00.html
The week before Rudd outlined the short term future of the economy, with its higher interest and unemployment. Avoiding being seen as responsible for such circumstances for 3 years is a strong incentive to go to an early election on an issue the Coalition is divided on and with the community wanting action for a number of years.
Mining business is running the wrong line with the electorate, demanding more from government in the way of subsidies and free permits. It has had years of opportunity with Howard to get a business designed emissions trading scheme going.
Instead, it appears that they want to pay nothing and take no meaningful measures to reduce emissions, a business as usual path, whilst the very country they are digging up and exporting is drying out.
The one chance Turnbull has to delay a November Double Dissolution is to reject the CPRS legislation in its Second Reading. This means the government will not be able to amend the legislation before it is rejected at the Third Reading making a DD Election the unamended legislation.
If the amendments are really important then the amended legislation has to restart it passage in the lower house, delaying a Double Dissolution showdown because a bill cannot be re-entered into parliament for 3 months. This means a February DD election would be the earliest possible date, when the Liberals Senator Minchin claims they will
Split with the nationals, desert Senator Fielding and pass the CPRS legislation anyway.
In this contest between the 2 old dinosaurs arguing about which too little too late path they want to follow the Greens cannot play a part as the 2 independents have the balance of power, and unless Senator Fielding sees a light he will remain in denial of the evidence.
Turnbull argues the electorate is not gullible [dumb]. If that applies to economic matters then it also applies to environmental ones.
If you think I am getting more and more out of touch here is what thousands across the globe thought when polled.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47887
Here is something to gladden the heart of Premier Bartlett.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE56U00Y20090731?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
Cycling in Berlin, you remember the weather forecasts on the SBS, is in a growth phase.
Oh and whilst Barty is cycling about, he may wish to consider these trees activities
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803173246.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070807084202.htm
When considered in light of the world’s known carbon densest forests being in Tasmania Bartlett should reconsider the imbalance in his policies where on the one hand he mitigates and adapts whilst on the other he induces climate instability.
Wasting resources isn’t clever and bum biting it will be. Even if Tasmania is a miniscule player on the global stage [0.12% of emissions] it still has responsibilities.
If you’re reading this to find a hole in the argument, unable to be convinced like Senator Fielding then the bit that summarizes scientific opinion won’t do it for you either even though they see the worst coming out of the confusion and inaction of the many.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-poised-to-feed-on-itself-20090731-e4gi.html?page=-1
Now here is an interesting solution to the problem of brown coal sequestration. Get nature to do it for you by using it as a plant growth adjuvant.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25871584-30538,00.html
If this worked post extracting the combustibles that can be burnt as a gas could assist in solving the cost problem by selling the offset value.
Some Tasmanians really love their fishing so no doubt do other fishers elsewhere. Have a look at the future under climate change stressors.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803185830.htm
